Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Noel Gallagher says the only downside of cycling is "the f***ing helmet"

High Flying Birds frontman rides four times a week

Noel Gallagher goes out cycling four times a week. The rock star says he mostly rides off road near his home in Petersfield in Hampshire and that the only downside is “the fucking helmet.”

Speaking on Matt Morgan's Funny How? podcast, he said: "A few years ago I was going to the gym every day and was always knackered."

Explaining the change in tack, he said: "I go out on the bike four days a week. I'm 53 now so it's not good to work out a lot, you're ticking over.

"I can do two days in a row and have the third day off. I go uphill off-roading. I'm going 25k in an hour-and-a-half, it's on country roads, there's nobody on them.

"The only downside of the bike is the fucking helmet but what are you gonna do?"

 

On another episode of the podcast, he said he didn’t like the look of himself in a cycling helmet: “I look like a… I don’t know what I look like. So I wear a motorbike helmet.”

Gallagher is of course not a driver, having famously never passed his test.

He bought a £110,000 1967 Jaguar in the 1990s, planning to pass his test before the car was delivered but abandoned his lessons after going out just once.

“Sometimes I do think I quite fancy it,” he said. “And then other times I just think it’d be a ball ache getting anywhere because now I’ve got to fucking drive.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

80 comments

Avatar
David9694 | 3 years ago
0 likes

"Headway urges cyclists to stay safe and wear a helmet as government kickstarts cycling revolution"

"We all think ‘it will never happen to me’ " no, Mr McCabe, I think about every time I got out on my bike, and well-intentioned as you might be, you need to look at what its actually causing the bulk of the incidents you are so concerned about - you have been gulled into thinking that self-protection by the vulnerable is 100% of the answer. 

https://www.headway.org.uk/news-and-campaigns/news/2020/headway-urges-cy...

"Peter McCabe, Headway’s Chief Executive, said: “It is encouraging to see the introduction of dedicated cycle lanes and training for cyclists. This will improve cycle safety – as will the wearing of helmets. 

“As the government persuades more people to cycle, we hope that it will also encourage people to follow its own Highway Code in which rule 59 states that all cyclists should wear a cycle helmet.

“We all think ‘it will never happen to me’, but every three minutes someone in the UK is admitted to hospital with a head injury – the effects of which can be devastating and life-long.

“The benefits of an active lifestyle cannot be understated, and cycling is a great way of keeping fit and healthy. To all would-be cyclists, many of whom may not have been on a bike for many years, we say get on your bikes and get peddling – but please take sensible, common sense precautions."

Avatar
wtjs | 3 years ago
1 like

No disadvantage to wearing a helmet, possible great advantage. I always wear one, but I have no interest in forcing anyone else.

Avatar
a4th | 3 years ago
0 likes

It's been a while since there's been an extravagant helmet row on road.cc...

Crashed into a big tree in Swinley last year, dislocated by shoulder and cracked my helmet. My own fault for riding like an idiot but am grateful it was the helmet that took the brunt of the impact. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to a4th | 3 years ago
2 likes

Extravagant? We haven't even reached 100 comments yet.

Avatar
David9694 replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
0 likes

Please stop these twee attempts at humanising animals, 

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to David9694 | 3 years ago
2 likes
David9694 wrote:

Please stop these twee attempts at humanising animals, 

There are alternatives if you are not happy about humanising the squirrels.

Avatar
The Ribbler | 3 years ago
2 likes

I don’t usually get drawn into the comments section littered with ‘expert nouveau cyclists’ who must at all costs deride any opinion that differs from theirs, or have ‘read’ the evidence somewhere in their copy of the Guardian... If Noel hates wearing a helmet he is entitled to say so, I wear one mostly, but if I choose not to upon occasion, it is MY choice and doesn’t affect anyone else. All helmets are shite, I don’t know why they just don’t fashion a Japs-eye in the top, because however much you spend on that helmet, you still look a cock!

Avatar
Achtervolger replied to The Ribbler | 3 years ago
1 like

I think the Graun is one of the few British newspapers worth spending money on, but I also think that any adult who wants to ride a bike can make their own decision on whether to wear a helmet. I always wear a helmet when I cycle, but I fully understand that there is an element of ritualism in doing so. I've been doing it for so long that it's largely force of habit, but that said, I have experienced one chute where having one on definitely saved me from a much worse injury, and at least two times when it may have done. I can't say I have much problem with wearing them, although I do have a slightly oddly shaped head which can make getting a good fit a bit awkward with many models. I think that perhaps because for as long as I've cycled, helmets have been regulation in professional cycling, I tend to think that wearing one is 'normal'. In fact, if I see a lycra clad cyclist without one, it looks a bit strange to me - almost as if they'd forgotten to put on their shorts or their jersey! As for the 'looking like a cock' aspect: ever since a work colleague asked me, when I was fully lycra clad for my winter cycle commute home, "Do you ever feel self-conscious wearing that stuff?", I've understood that whilst in my own head I look sleek and pro, to most people I just look like a jeb-end, helmet or not!

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Achtervolger | 3 years ago
0 likes

No helmets in the TdF for a long time, then they had to put them on when they entered certain countries on a stage, then required except for climbs, then all the time.

Although given the injuries of collarbone and pelvis, they''d be better of with protection there.

Avatar
Velovoyeur | 3 years ago
4 likes

What a great debate  - both sides of the argument represented, strong opinions and some petty name-calling to boot. Gotta love Road CC.

Go back to the article. Aging rock star doesn't like wearing a cycling helmet.

So what. If you don't like it Noel, don't wear one. It's your choice.  

Avatar
Tom_77 | 3 years ago
7 likes
Quote:

The rock star says he mostly rides off road near his home in Petersfield in Hampshire

 

He lives in a house
A very big house in the country

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to Tom_77 | 3 years ago
2 likes
Tom_77 wrote:
Quote:

The rock star says he mostly rides off road near his home in Petersfield in Hampshire

He lives in a house
A very big house in the country

I think our Noel would be spitting if he heard you quoting a Blur lyric...  3

Avatar
Daddy Feebs replied to Tom_77 | 3 years ago
1 like

The very big house in the country was in Barton-Le-Clay, FWIW. I visited, a number of times. Lovely place, had its own croquet lawn (but of course)

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
0 likes

Just seen that Simon Cowell has broken his back falling off a new e-bike: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/aug/09/simon-cowell-breaks-back-falling-off-electric-bike-in-us

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3 years ago
7 likes

"The only downside of the bike is the fucking helmet but what are you gonna do?"

Read the research and don't bother with a helmet; show that you aren't just another sheep being brainwashed into something so the machine can make more money.   It's nothing to do with your safety and everything to do with making faceless corporations billions.

cyclehelmets.org

Avatar
Blackthorne replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
4 likes

Do us all a favor and fade away  

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Blackthorne | 3 years ago
7 likes
Blackthorne wrote:

Do us all a favor and fade away  

Life must be tough when you are unable to argue your point and ignore all the reliable scientific evidence.  Presumably you don't wear a mask or believe in climate change.

Avatar
Blackthorne replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
1 like

That's ironic, because your crusade against wearing a helmet is almost no different from the tiresome moaning about masks don't save lives and and that global warming is a hoax drummed up by the mass media. An 'argument' clearly biased towards you not wanting to be inconvenienced and of no obvious benefit to society at large. 

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Blackthorne | 3 years ago
4 likes
Blackthorne wrote:

That's ironic, because your crusade against wearing a helmet is almost no different from the tiresome moaning about masks don't save lives and and that global warming is a hoax drummed up by the mass media. An 'argument' so completely biased towards you not wanting to be inconvenienced and so unhelpful to society it's not even worth wasting energy talking about. 

Wrong again; I don't crusade against wearing a helmet, I merely seek to inform the ignorant, dispel the myths and expose the propaganda.  My arguments are based on long term, large scale, reliable, scientific studies, just like masks and climate change.  It is apparent from your response that you have no knowledge of the subject and cannot logically argue your point, whatever it might be.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Blackthorne | 3 years ago
7 likes

Masks are about keeping other people safe from the wearer, helmets are about putting the burden of safety on the potential victim rather than on those that cause the danger - it's pretty much the exact opposite of the rationale for masks, in fact.

Avatar
Blackthorne replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 3 years ago
0 likes

Let's see who sympathizes with you if you slip and fall on a high speed downhill and smash your head into a lamppost then cry about being the victim of a lamppost conspiracy. Are you going to say with a straight face that it would have made no difference had a foam shell been between your skull and a piece of iron?

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Blackthorne | 3 years ago
7 likes

I think the question is more why do you think at 30 mph it would have any effect, given that speed is way above the speed the tests are run at.

Avatar
Blackthorne replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
1 like

I'm sure there are many who would beg to differ. 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Blackthorne | 3 years ago
6 likes

They beg to differ that the tests are way lower than 30 mph?

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
1 like

Do you think it would have no effect?

In the recent interview with the guy from Giro (not an unbiased source admittedly) he suggested that a helmet would always reduce the energy transferred to the head.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Rich_cb | 3 years ago
4 likes

I can't work out which post you are replying to under the new layout but if the 30mph one, given that the energy is related to the square of the velocity, I don't rate my chances much at 30 mph with or without a helmet on hitting an immovable object.

I think you posted before in here that there is a mild benefit with a helmet at low speeds which seems a reasonable position. Happy to be corrected if that is not quite precisely what you said.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
0 likes

I do think helmets are beneficial and that benefit is greatest at lower speeds. I think there is objective data to support that.

I'm just not sure at what speed they stop being beneficial.

Helmets are tested to the equivalent of 12mph but they don't cease to provide any protection above this speed. At 12.1mph you'd expect a helmet to behave very similarly to at 12 mph.

I was just curious as to the speed at which the energy involved becomes so great as to render any helmet protection inconsequential.

The giro guy suggested a helmet was always beneficial which may be true in pure energy terms but I don't think is likely to be true in terms of outcome.

Has anyone done any research into it that you know of? I haven't come across any.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Rich_cb | 3 years ago
0 likes

At 30 mph, the kinetic energy is over 6 times that at 12 mph. Not sure my faith stretches that far. I'd also be concerned about the percussive effects to the brain at that speed of impact.
Not come across ant research.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to Hirsute | 3 years ago
0 likes

Fair enough.

I wouldn't fancy my chances in a 30 mph collision regardless of helmet but the stats suggest only 20% of pedestrians hit at that speed are killed.

Depends on what you hit I suppose.

Avatar
joe9090 replied to Blackthorne | 3 years ago
1 like

What a nonsense reply...

Pages

Latest Comments